Until such time as they see fit to pass 'emergency' legislation to grant executive powers to do so. As John Gilmore identified though "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."... the data will flow... somehow.
re: close up work. We used to make specs for some Harley St surgeons years ago... I say we we would usually send them to Zeiss in Germany. Anyway, they would have their normal single vision glasses inserted with a magnfying scope. eg; http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/5180286/2/istockphoto_5180286-surgeon-with-magnifying-glasses.jpg
Not very practical for day-to-day wear though:-) Or alternatively you need trifocals but they offer limited field of vision.
When volume is ramped up, these could easily become less expensive than bifocals; after all, there's only one grinding operation per lens instead of two.
Common misconception, nowadays there's only one grinding process when you make bifocals. Bifocal lens blanks come to an opticians with the front of the lens already finished to a set/known curvature/power. The lens 'surfacing' equipment simply cuts/polishes the rear of the lens to the required shape to produce the require powered lens as prescribed by the optician, the finished lens is then 'glazed' into the spectacle frame as a normal lens would be. Lens blanks are incredibly cheap already... seriously... markups can be immense (in the mid 90's we were paying £10 for a pair of Nikon NL80 lenses which retailed for >£200)... the difference between the cost of single vision vs bifocals is about 2 to 1 (depending on power and material).
They could put in a rangefinder that automatically chose the correct magnification based on what's in front of your head. If there was an in FOV "aiming dot" (a la HUD) you could aim the range finder at your object of interest.
What would happen if you're driving a car, Would the windscreen get in the way?
It will depend upon how much the refractive index can be altered by and how much the focal point of the lens can be moved to correct the prism. Fundamentally a 'prismed' spectacle lens is simply an 'off center' lens that is physically moving the image on the retina left/right/up/down to compensate for the eye's own lens. If you've got a 'huge' amount of prism then I doubt his will be able to resolve it. If they could somehow create a lens using this technology that acts like a Fresnel prism does then they might be on to something.
[disclosure - I used to make spectacles for a living before the internet] You may have different types of progressive lenses. there are numerous manufacturers of them out there and the progressive bifocal area differs across most of them. if you are finding it too narrow then your optician should be able to prescribe a different pair.
Executive bifocals (these basically look like split lenses with the entire lower portion of the lens being the 'reading' area) might well suit those of you with multiple monitor setups as it would cover the lower field of vision. Speak to your Dispensing Optician and explain your needs and they should be able to easily prescribe the right lenses for you.... if they can't then go to another Opticians
Just three or four years ago nobody had ever called a software program an "app". That term is new and unique to the iPhone. Software was sold as "software", "programs", and sometimes "software applications", but I had never heard the term "app" before the iPhone.
Sorry but you're wrong there. As has been pointed out before, 'app' has been used as an abbreviation in the Warez/BBS/FXP scene for many years and then latterly has been adopted by the likes of Google & Apple. If you have never heard of this abbreviation before then I can only assume that you are young and are relatively new to the world of computers or associated tech-scenes.
Go read the old marketing for the Blackberry, for Windows CE, for Palm. None of them use the term "app". Just because the iPhone has such a dominant marketing position the term "app" has come to mean cell phone software.
You're probably right (I haven't checked), but then using slang/abbreviations in formal marketing literature is a bit of a no-no. Apple simply cottoned onto to their users being a bit more accepting of such abbreviations in everyday speak, it does not mean they 'invented' the word.
Micro"SOFT" sells software. It's not MicroApp, is it? Apple made a cute catchy term for it's programs. Let Microsoft try to do the same. I'm sure Microsoft marketing can come up with something catchy, like "There's an executable for that".
Putting aside that I don;t really understand your differentiation of 'app' and 'software' Apple didn't make, invent or create anything new in the use of this word, they have simply seized upon the terms use in the wider community in an attempt to build on their tech credentials by using a commonly and frequently used abbreviation. Arguably Google were using the word 'apps' before the 2007 introduction of the iphone or the 2008 introduction of the App Store. Google were referring to to 'Google Apps For Your Domain' in Aug 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Apps). Here's some more uses of it in the wild:
appstore.com - owned by Salesforce.com since 2005 (originally registered sometime in 1998) until they sold it to Apple Inc in March 2009
myapps.com - seems to have been created 1999
myappstore.com - first created 2005
And that's with just 5mins searching. We can categorically show that Apple neither invented or created this phrase. Arguably they may well have popularised tit, but that's no reason for them to be able to trademark it.
I'm glad this topic cropped up as I was watching that episode and immediately thought.... hang on... wasn't that a meteor? But as no-one else on the show picked up on it I though that it was either plane on camera, or a local issue to me, a floater in my eye or some other less exotic answer. Nice to know my initial thoughts were correct. Personally I'm thoroughly enjoying this series, I think some of the US astronomers over in Hawaii that they cut to frequently (and even the live telephone conversation with the Space Station on Wednesday) are a bit perplexed (and somewhat envious) that this would command prime-time viewing in the UK...
As above, there was no date on the original post, not too sure how I got yesterdays date from this, I think i was probably looking at the latest 'updated date' on the google index of that story.
Ah, many thanks, I was trying to find the publish date (the DM is particularly bad at this at times), not too sure how I got yesterdays date, thanks for the clarification. The post I quoted though is not a fabrication, they still posted it, I simply got my dates wrong because the DM failed to display a publish date on that particular article.
No, to get an injunction they merely need to show there _may_ be a case. The final outcome of any litigation after this will prove whether there _was_ a case to argue in the first place.
...my dad scoffs at people who aren't willing to work at leat 60 hours a week. his first two years he worked between 120-130 hours a week and never dropped below 80 until he hit 53 years old.
Presumably when he had his first heart-attack.
...I was raised to look at someone who clocks out each day after a certain bell rings regardless of the work on the table as lazy and uncommitted.
I was raised to regard people who consistently have to put extra hours in at work as inefficient and ineffectual in their job, poor time managers and unable to complete a days job in the time allocated.
I was raised to understand that it's not how long you take doing a job that matters, it's how efficiently you do it.
I was raised to understand that a happy workforce is a productive and profitable workforce.
I was raised to treat my employees fairly and not like some cheap commodity.
And I was raised to understand that people who spend their life at work tend to be shallow, self-centred workaholics who should spend more time with their families, friends and relations because regardless of how much money you earn you can't buy time back and you can't make up for not being there.
Parents expose you to the good and the bad in themselves, I choose to remember and emulate the good.
I work in online advertising, specifically I look after a major UK publisher's adservers/ad-delivery. We use the following to keep an eye on identified malware delivering domains:
Poor people currently pay either no taxes at all or very low taxes as proportion of their income. Bottom half pays no income tax at all
But this doesn't mean they aren't paying taxes! Poorer families will invariably end up paying a higher % of their income in excise/sales/indirect taxation (food, fuel, services etc).
Well it's stupid. The violations appears to be images with underlying HTML links, but that technology has existed since the days of Netscape... possible as early as Mosaic. This company can not lay claim to somebody else's invention and/or prior art.
Don't get me wrong, I hate Patent Trolls as much as the next slashdotter but this patent was filed in 1990 which would make it before Netscape/Mosaic. Not having had any experience with other hypertext based system before that I can't comment on prior art but, surely the early WIMP systems would provide more than enough prior art against this?
I wouldn't totally agree with it being 'sensationalist' however it is at times 'covert surveillance' as they attempt to hide their cars in concealed entrances. I've no problem using another word to describe this act, it comes down to basically the same thing in the end.
I'm part of a the NTBPT (No to Bike Parking Tax) demo group in London which protests at having to pay parking fees in Central London. The UK law stipulates that councils are not allowed to simply charge for parking as a revenue stream, there has to be some benefit to the local population/businesses such as relieveing congestion, and as bikes don't cause congestion we're currently fighting Westminster Counsil in the European Courts of the legality of the charges. http://www.notobikeparkingtax.com/
If you don't like what your elected memebers are doing then 1] try and vote them out, 2] organise, protest & demonstrate 3] take direct action to hinder their effectiveness (all legal and above board direct action mind.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is why in the UK we developed 'compulsary purchase orders' :-) What was it Spock once said... 'the needs of the many' and all that.
Until such time as they see fit to pass 'emergency' legislation to grant executive powers to do so. As John Gilmore identified though "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."... the data will flow... somehow.
What tree-hugging, whale loving, panda protecting hippies can't afford computers?... wait, you don't mean the World Wildlife Fund?
Or Try the executive split bifocal, the entire lower portion of the lens is the reading area then.
re: close up work. We used to make specs for some Harley St surgeons years ago... I say we we would usually send them to Zeiss in Germany. Anyway, they would have their normal single vision glasses inserted with a magnfying scope. eg; http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/5180286/2/istockphoto_5180286-surgeon-with-magnifying-glasses.jpg Not very practical for day-to-day wear though :-) Or alternatively you need trifocals but they offer limited field of vision.
When volume is ramped up, these could easily become less expensive than bifocals; after all, there's only one grinding operation per lens instead of two.
Common misconception, nowadays there's only one grinding process when you make bifocals. Bifocal lens blanks come to an opticians with the front of the lens already finished to a set/known curvature/power. The lens 'surfacing' equipment simply cuts/polishes the rear of the lens to the required shape to produce the require powered lens as prescribed by the optician, the finished lens is then 'glazed' into the spectacle frame as a normal lens would be. Lens blanks are incredibly cheap already... seriously... markups can be immense (in the mid 90's we were paying £10 for a pair of Nikon NL80 lenses which retailed for >£200)... the difference between the cost of single vision vs bifocals is about 2 to 1 (depending on power and material).
They could put in a rangefinder that automatically chose the correct magnification based on what's in front of your head. If there was an in FOV "aiming dot" (a la HUD) you could aim the range finder at your object of interest.
What would happen if you're driving a car, Would the windscreen get in the way?
It will depend upon how much the refractive index can be altered by and how much the focal point of the lens can be moved to correct the prism. Fundamentally a 'prismed' spectacle lens is simply an 'off center' lens that is physically moving the image on the retina left/right/up/down to compensate for the eye's own lens. If you've got a 'huge' amount of prism then I doubt his will be able to resolve it. If they could somehow create a lens using this technology that acts like a Fresnel prism does then they might be on to something.
[disclosure - I used to make spectacles for a living before the internet] You may have different types of progressive lenses. there are numerous manufacturers of them out there and the progressive bifocal area differs across most of them. if you are finding it too narrow then your optician should be able to prescribe a different pair.
Executive bifocals (these basically look like split lenses with the entire lower portion of the lens being the 'reading' area) might well suit those of you with multiple monitor setups as it would cover the lower field of vision. Speak to your Dispensing Optician and explain your needs and they should be able to easily prescribe the right lenses for you.... if they can't then go to another Opticians
Just three or four years ago nobody had ever called a software program an "app". That term is new and unique to the iPhone. Software was sold as "software", "programs", and sometimes "software applications", but I had never heard the term "app" before the iPhone.
Sorry but you're wrong there. As has been pointed out before, 'app' has been used as an abbreviation in the Warez/BBS/FXP scene for many years and then latterly has been adopted by the likes of Google & Apple. If you have never heard of this abbreviation before then I can only assume that you are young and are relatively new to the world of computers or associated tech-scenes.
Go read the old marketing for the Blackberry, for Windows CE, for Palm. None of them use the term "app". Just because the iPhone has such a dominant marketing position the term "app" has come to mean cell phone software.
You're probably right (I haven't checked), but then using slang/abbreviations in formal marketing literature is a bit of a no-no. Apple simply cottoned onto to their users being a bit more accepting of such abbreviations in everyday speak, it does not mean they 'invented' the word.
Micro"SOFT" sells software. It's not MicroApp, is it? Apple made a cute catchy term for it's programs. Let Microsoft try to do the same. I'm sure Microsoft marketing can come up with something catchy, like "There's an executable for that".
Putting aside that I don;t really understand your differentiation of 'app' and 'software' Apple didn't make, invent or create anything new in the use of this word, they have simply seized upon the terms use in the wider community in an attempt to build on their tech credentials by using a commonly and frequently used abbreviation. Arguably Google were using the word 'apps' before the 2007 introduction of the iphone or the 2008 introduction of the App Store. Google were referring to to 'Google Apps For Your Domain' in Aug 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Apps). Here's some more uses of it in the wild:
And that's with just 5mins searching. We can categorically show that Apple neither invented or created this phrase. Arguably they may well have popularised tit, but that's no reason for them to be able to trademark it.
I'm glad this topic cropped up as I was watching that episode and immediately thought.... hang on... wasn't that a meteor? But as no-one else on the show picked up on it I though that it was either plane on camera, or a local issue to me, a floater in my eye or some other less exotic answer. Nice to know my initial thoughts were correct. Personally I'm thoroughly enjoying this series, I think some of the US astronomers over in Hawaii that they cut to frequently (and even the live telephone conversation with the Space Station on Wednesday) are a bit perplexed (and somewhat envious) that this would command prime-time viewing in the UK...
As above, there was no date on the original post, not too sure how I got yesterdays date from this, I think i was probably looking at the latest 'updated date' on the google index of that story.
Ah, many thanks, I was trying to find the publish date (the DM is particularly bad at this at times), not too sure how I got yesterdays date, thanks for the clarification. The post I quoted though is not a fabrication, they still posted it, I simply got my dates wrong because the DM failed to display a publish date on that particular article.
Unbelievably the Daily Mail has published this today as well:
Mercury in flu vaccine is linked to autism.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-153722/Mercury-flu-vaccine-linked-autism.html
You couldn't make it up.... unless you were the Daily Mail.
No, to get an injunction they merely need to show there _may_ be a case. The final outcome of any litigation after this will prove whether there _was_ a case to argue in the first place.
I loved the option in the on-screen menu 'Insert Omniprobe'... muahahahaha
...my dad scoffs at people who aren't willing to work at leat 60 hours a week. his first two years he worked between 120-130 hours a week and never dropped below 80 until he hit 53 years old.
Presumably when he had his first heart-attack.
...I was raised to look at someone who clocks out each day after a certain bell rings regardless of the work on the table as lazy and uncommitted.
I was raised to regard people who consistently have to put extra hours in at work as inefficient and ineffectual in their job, poor time managers and unable to complete a days job in the time allocated.
I was raised to understand that it's not how long you take doing a job that matters, it's how efficiently you do it.
I was raised to understand that a happy workforce is a productive and profitable workforce.
I was raised to treat my employees fairly and not like some cheap commodity.
And I was raised to understand that people who spend their life at work tend to be shallow, self-centred workaholics who should spend more time with their families, friends and relations because regardless of how much money you earn you can't buy time back and you can't make up for not being there.
Parents expose you to the good and the bad in themselves, I choose to remember and emulate the good.
If you pay dues to and recieve benefits from the union, than in what meaningful way are you not in the union?
Perhaps in the same way that here in the UK I pay taxes to a government that I did not vote for, nor do I support.
You forgot to mention that Thursday is the new black.
I work in online advertising, specifically I look after a major UK publisher's adservers/ad-delivery. We use the following to keep an eye on identified malware delivering domains:
http://www.malwaredomainlist.com/mdl.php
http://www.malwaredomains.com/
http://www.malwareurl.com/
http://www.anti-malvertising.com/
Poor people currently pay either no taxes at all or very low taxes as proportion of their income. Bottom half pays no income tax at all
But this doesn't mean they aren't paying taxes! Poorer families will invariably end up paying a higher % of their income in excise/sales/indirect taxation (food, fuel, services etc).
Well it's stupid. The violations appears to be images with underlying HTML links, but that technology has existed since the days of Netscape... possible as early as Mosaic. This company can not lay claim to somebody else's invention and/or prior art.
Don't get me wrong, I hate Patent Trolls as much as the next slashdotter but this patent was filed in 1990 which would make it before Netscape/Mosaic. Not having had any experience with other hypertext based system before that I can't comment on prior art but, surely the early WIMP systems would provide more than enough prior art against this?
[Citation needed]
NB: IANAL
This article details the basis on the 1995 case which set the precedent: http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=916:westminster-council-accused-of-illegal-parking-charge-hikes&catid=64:transport-articles&q=&Itemid=8 The BBC reported our attempts to it here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8470804.stm This was the basis for our inital appeal for a public enquiry to The Department of Communities & Local Government http://www.notobikeparkingtax.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Demand-for-a-Public-Inquiry.pdf (151 pages long)
I wouldn't totally agree with it being 'sensationalist' however it is at times 'covert surveillance' as they attempt to hide their cars in concealed entrances. I've no problem using another word to describe this act, it comes down to basically the same thing in the end.
I'm part of a the NTBPT (No to Bike Parking Tax) demo group in London which protests at having to pay parking fees in Central London. The UK law stipulates that councils are not allowed to simply charge for parking as a revenue stream, there has to be some benefit to the local population/businesses such as relieveing congestion, and as bikes don't cause congestion we're currently fighting Westminster Counsil in the European Courts of the legality of the charges. http://www.notobikeparkingtax.com/
Westminster Council also employs CCTV cars that roam the streets of London spying on the populace & catching any "traffic violations", but we've caught on to that and now we follow the CCTV cars and we film them & alert motorists about them and occasionally post evidence of them committing their own traffic violations to Youtube :-)
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23883049-bikers-blow-cover-of-cctv-cars-snooping-on-drivers.do
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHOazGC7alk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QNfeL71ojg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cztfKB8SGCI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsZb9jIfGv0
If you don't like what your elected memebers are doing then 1] try and vote them out, 2] organise, protest & demonstrate 3] take direct action to hinder their effectiveness (all legal and above board direct action mind.